Thread: 1982 news article re uncontrolled immigration

A friend, who shares our concern, mailed me some old news articles and thought it was worth posting here. This was written almost 24 yrs ago.

Santa Barbara News Press, Sun. Nov 21, 1982

Uncontrolled immigration: a threat to national unity

By Garrett Hardin, a professor emeritus at UCSB. This article is adapted from his testimony before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee.

The functions of any nation, considered as a whole, include the all-important one of producing the next generation of citizens. We can do this either by producing babies of our own and raising them to maturity or by importing adult bodies from elsewhere. There are those who recommend the latter course on economic grounds: Immigration, they say, allows us to impose the costs of raising people on other nations, thus increasing our prosperity. Setting aside all moral considerations, I submit that the economic benefit of such a policy is an illusion.

A democracy can survive only if it has an irreducible minimum of consensus in many areas - political ideals, social customs, ethical ideals, and a mutually understood language. Much as we may admire diversity, it is a fact that most immigrants from cultures markedly different from our own impose high acculturation costs on society. (Businesses and individuals who benefit from immigration pay few of these costs). The public purse is not bottomless, and we can stand only so much disorder.

In evolving immigration policies, we must take very seriously the dangers of tribalism. I use the word 'tribe' to stand for any group that perceives itself as a group, placing significant group aspirations above the interests of the nation of which they are a part. A race, a religious sect, a social class, or a language group can be a tribe in this broad sense. Other things being equal, a larger group has more tribal power than a small one.

Publicity that emphasizes group differences fosters tribalism (though the conscious purpose of the publicity may have been quite different). The legitimation of multiple alternative languages in education, voting, and the courts encourages tribalism and slows down acculturation. The motives behind today's drive toward "bilingual education" were no doubt noble, namely to increase the pride and ease the transition of immigration families into the national culture. In practice, "bilingual education" - really polylingual education - has often delayed acculturation and strengthened tribalism.

Telling examples of the dangers of tribalism are all around us: eastern Canada, with its conflicts between French and English: Northern Ireland, where Catholics fight Protestants: and Belgium, where Flemings and Walloons continue the conflicts of centuries. These are not the worst of the tribal conflicts on the world scene, but they are bad enough to make us pause before thoughtlessly strengthening tribalism in the United States. The periodic bloodshed in a country like Northern Ireland makes the front page of the newspaper but, overall, this may not be the worst aspect of tribalism. At a less visible level, the non-negotiable demands made by all parties to a conflict can seriously interfere with political, social, and commercial activities, greatly lowering industrial productivity and prosperity and laying the ground for explosive violence later. Tribalism is almost a one-way street: beyond a certain point, greater tribalism comes easily, a reduction in tribalism all but impossible.

The growing polyingualism of our nation encourages the growth of tribalism. Further uncontrolled immigration can only worsen the prospects for national unity. Prudence dictates that we put a halt to the present march toward tribalism before the point of no return is reached.

National survival in the world of tomorrow will be determined by the trends we permit to continue today. Americans are now acutely aware of the competitive advantage of the Japanese in international markets. There are many facets to this hard fact, one of which is relevant to the problems discussed here: the divisive force of tribalism is far weaker in Japan than it is in America. A simple statistical comparison underlines this assertion.

In the United States there is one lawyer for every 500 people; in Japan, the figure is one per 10,000. America evidently requires 20 times as many lawyers per capita to keep the social machinery going.

Are the Japanese inherently less competitive, less agressive than we? Most unlikely. The true cause of the difference is related to cultural unity. The Japanese share common ideals and a common culture to an extent scarcely imaginable to Americans. Commonality allows them to settle most disputes by informal means, out of court and even without lawyers.

We need not begrudge American lawyers their livelihood, but we must not blink the fact that litigation is a social cost, not a benefit. Cultural diversity is desirable at low levels, but at high levels it breeds tribalism and increased social losses due to the high cost of traffic in adversary messages. Of course, after due deliberation we may deem the benefits worth the cost. But let us not forget that as a nation we must compete with other nations that are committed to different conclusions.

The United States now admits more immigrants than all the other nations in the world together. How long can we survive under this policy?

Psychic? or just "common sense" which seems to be in minute supply today.....

common sense and the truth, crazybird.